Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (182654)	3/1/2006 3:32:34 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Intelligence agencies warned about growing local insurgency in late 2003 realcities.com WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports. Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists- and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops. The existence of the top-secret document, which was the subject of a bitter three-month debate among U.S. intelligence agencies, has not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience. The reports received a cool reception from Bush administration policymakers at the White House and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the former officials, who discussed them publicly for the first time. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continued to describe the insurgency as a containable threat, posed mainly by former supporters of Saddam Hussein, criminals and non-Iraqi terrorists - even as the U.S. intelligence community was warning otherwise. <MORE> And the Bush administration lies (more excerpts): In August 2003, with concerns about the insurgency growing, Bush told reporters: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. ... We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." On Nov. 1, 2003, a day after the National Intelligence Estimate was distributed, Bush said in his weekly radio address: "Some of the killers behind these attacks are loyalists of the Saddam regime who seek to regain power and who resent Iraq's new freedoms. Others are foreigners who have traveled to Iraq to spread fear and chaos. ... The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will. Our will cannot be shaken." As recently as May 2005, Cheney told a television interviewer: "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

To: sylvester80 who wrote (182654)	3/1/2006 8:49:27 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

at least post accurately. Negroponte did not say "Bush screwed up the Middle East" as you say he did. There is no excuse for this deception. The article stands on its own merits.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (182654)	3/1/2006 2:13:25 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

What has been done to the US of A, or what we are allowing to happen, is even worse. We have no rule of law. We now have no checks and balances. We have an 'aristocracy' that is above the law. We are in really big trouble and only artificially inflated housing prices, loose credit and really low rates are keeping this country from looking as hurt as it is. We are truly in big trouble and so many people refuse to see it so that we can fix it. I have never been so concerned for this country as I am now.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (182654)	3/3/2006 12:33:24 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was critical of the Bush administration’s reliance on the six-party talks aimed at disarming North Korea. “I worry that the six-party talks have really devolved into the Chinese talks, and the Chinese have their own agenda,” she said. “I’m not sure that the six-party talks is the only route we should be following.” And by WHAT authority does Hillary Clinton believe the US has the right to conduct bi-lateral negotiations with N. Korea?? Isn't this the same thing y'all accuse Bush of having done in Iraq, despite the fact that he DID go to the UN and obtained a unanimous UNSC resolution (1441). Come on Sly... is it this what you're supporting?? A US solution to an Asian problem? Another chance for us to bear the complete blame for whatever BS Kim Jong Il decides to pull after engaging in bi-lateral talks? Hawk